Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

FAIRTAX CALCULATOR - WHAT WILL FAIRTAX COST YOU PERSONALLY?
FairTax Calculator | Marlene Tobin

Posted on 09/11/2006 2:38:16 PM PDT by witchypooy

FAIRTAX CALCULATOR

www.fairtaxcalculator.org

Do you have questions on what FairTax will cost your family? Have doubts about it's progressiveness? Worried it will place an unfair burden on the poor, the middle class, the young or the seniors?

Time to put the hype aside and stop listening to all the spin. Why not just find out exactly what FairTax will mean to your own personal bottom line? It's easy. Just go to the FairTax Calculator, input your gross income. Approximate your 8 "fair tax deductions" which represent your yearly tax free spending. Give your family size to determine your "monthly prebate". In 10 easy lines the fairtax calculator will calculate for you just what you would pay annually in FairTax considering your spending habits and number of dependents. The calculator will show your net effect annual FairTax percentage rate, the dollar amount of fairtax you would pay on your income, and the amount of your family's monthly fairtax prebate under HR 25.

No one will pay 23% net effective annual rate because of the prebate factor. Actually, many will pay well under 15%, while MOST will see a reduction in taxes over what they pay today for income tax plus 7.65% social security taxes. More importantly, by personally controlling one's own spending/savings habits, ALL will have more control over the amount of sales tax they pay, effecting what their own bottom line FairTax rate will be. ALL will see the IRS out of their personal life, and freedom and privacy restored!

Exact figures are not needed. Approximations will give you a very good picture of the Fair "sales" Tax system's effect on your personal tax burden. Then, just take these FairTax figures and compare them to your current income tax bill to the IRS, using your pay stubs showing current withholding, or last year's Income tax figures (income tax + Social Security FICA withholding). Then if you like, you can also figure a FLAT 24.65% on your annual income to determine what you would pay in tax under any of the current Flat Tax Proposals (17% income tax + 7.65% FICA social security). Isn't FairTax less complicated than the current IRS income tax? Wouldn't FairTax be less costly to you than any proposed "Flat Tax"?

Young, old, retired, unemployed, self employed, student. No matter who you are or what situation you are in, there is a good chance that your bottom line under FairTax will be smaller. How? By broadening the tax base and taxing ALL those spending money in the U.S., including legal and non legal residents, the underground economy, those earning a living through criminal activities, those currently evading taxes, those using loopholes to avoid taxes, those tourists using our services. When all pay, the burden for each of us is lowered. That's the "fair" in FairTax.

Put your doubts aside. Take the time to check out the FairTax Calculator. It's easy, it's fast, and it's totally anonymous! All hype aside, the numbers show the true story so you be the judge.

Check it out!

Marlene
fairtaxsupportpa@aol.com
Pittsburgh


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: fairtax; hr25; nationalsalestax; socialsecurity; taxreform
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-125 next last
To: pigdog
I don't assume the are "wrong" at all
I didn't say you did, did I?
101 posted on 09/15/2006 4:43:10 AM PDT by Your Nightmare
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: lucysmom
The paper you mention by Burton/Mastromarco is apparently "Emancipating America from the Income tax" which is widely available on the Internet and which, apparently since you speak of its provisions, is one you've read.

It doesn't put forth the rate you mention to include payroll taxes and the prebate but derives a 21.1% rate that includes payroll taxes and the prebate. The 21.1% figure was correct for the data from the time period used (approc mid '90's) but would now be the 23% as in HR25. This paper has been posted from/linked to many times on these threads.

I'm not sure why you think the Jorgenson paper you mention is unpublished since several of your colleagues have posted from it (or given links to it) several times on these threads. Please check with them for the allegedly "unpublished" study. As I recall, this study was only a preliminary paper anyway and those pushing it on these threads, pretending duplicity by AFFT, soon realized the paper content wasn't much (nor was there the duplicity pretended) and stopped pursuing the matter.

If your colleagues don't recall either paper, you might look back through these threads since they were both available already on the threads.

102 posted on 09/15/2006 7:59:12 AM PDT by pigdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: lucysmom
The FairTax requires the purchase (verb) of a purchase (noun) to not only show the price of the item involved but also its tax inclusive tax rate plus the two figures added together:

"'SEC. 510. TAX TO BE SEPARATELY STATED AND CHARGED.

`(a) In General- For each purchase of taxable property or services for which a tax is imposed by section 101, the seller shall charge the tax imposed by section 101 separately from the purchase. For purchase of taxable property or services for which a tax is imposed by section 101, the seller shall provide to the purchaser a receipt for each transaction that includes--

`(1) the property or services price exclusive of tax;

`(2) the amount of tax paid;

`(3) the property or service price inclusive of tax;

`(4) the tax rate (the amount of tax paid (per paragraph (2)) divided by the property or service price inclusive of tax (per paragraph (3));

`(5) the date that the good or service was sold;

`(6) the name of the vendor; and

`(7) the vendor registration number. "

This means that under the FairTax when you buy something taxable you also pay the included tax as the two things (the item's price and it's tax) are then together part of the price paid.

103 posted on 09/15/2006 8:25:26 AM PDT by pigdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Your Nightmare
"You assume they don't know they are wrong. I don't."
Seemingly what you said was that I assumed they did not know they were wrong (wich itself is your assumption) but you did not so assume and I responded that I made no such assumption. Your non-assumption that they "don't know they are wrong" is, itself, also an assumption since there is no evidence to the contrary; merely your assumption that I knew something not in evidence.
104 posted on 09/15/2006 8:41:24 AM PDT by pigdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: lewislynn
Actually they're the authors of the Fairtax.

They may be the authors of the FairTax, but the analysis by the authors the FairTax site points to is A NST, has many features of the FairTax, but is not the FairTax.

From the Executive Summary:

* A 15 percent sales tax on the final purchase of goods and services at the retail level. The NST would be similar to state sales taxes. The rate should decline in future years to 10 to 12 percent as economic growth allows more revenue to be raised at a lower rate and government downsizing continues.

* A universal rebate for every household, exempting all consumption up to the poverty level. That would mean that the first $18,588 of consumption each year for a family of four would be tax-free. The rebate could be provided as a refundable credit against the payroll tax.

* Reimbursement to states and retailers of the cost of collecting the national sales tax.

* Abolition of the Internal Revenue Service. The states should bear the primary responsibility for administering the national sales tax. The IRS would be abolished, and a much smaller, less intrusive federal excise tax bureau would collect trust fund excise taxes such as the gasoline tax. The Social Security Administration would enforce and collect payroll taxes.

pigdog insists that the FairTax, itself, has been studied by economists. Both authors appear to be lawyers with an interest in financial services.

All I'm asking is that pigdog point to a study of the FairTax by an economist because I'm too stupid to find one.

105 posted on 09/15/2006 9:01:59 AM PDT by lucysmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: lucysmom
because I'm too stupid to find one.
Oh, OK... LOL!

Those two guys are part of, or are, the Argus Group...whatever that is.

106 posted on 09/15/2006 9:41:49 AM PDT by lewislynn (Fairtax = lies, hope, wishful thinking, conjecture and lack of logic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: lucysmom
The "Emancipating America from the Income Tax" is the genesis for what is now known as the FairTax and it was done in the mid-'90's using data from that time. If you'd read the entire article you'd notice that the 15% you mention is without the prebate or payroll taxes - both of which are covered in the paper. The authors of the article are both economists and lawyers with advanced degrees and one, Mastromarco, has an LLM in Taxation as well. This is also mentioned in the lead-in to the article.

Also see #102.

107 posted on 09/15/2006 9:46:00 AM PDT by pigdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: lewislynn
The Argus Group is a free-market oriented public policy law and economics firm. They seem to offer everything from financial planning to printing/communication services.
108 posted on 09/15/2006 9:51:42 AM PDT by lucysmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: lucysmom
They seem to offer everything from financial planning to printing/communication services.
Apparently they also want to rid themselves of their tax burden by passing it off to you.
109 posted on 09/15/2006 9:54:53 AM PDT by lewislynn (Fairtax = lies, hope, wishful thinking, conjecture and lack of logic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: pigdog

Though it is possible that the bios I read were incomplete, this is what I found; Mr. Burton earned a B.A. in economics before going on to get his J.D. Mr. Mastromarco doesn't appear to have an academic background in economics, he is a Tax Attorney.


110 posted on 09/15/2006 10:05:05 AM PDT by lucysmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: lucysmom
Mastromarco has an LLM (Legum Magister) in Taxation (like a Master's Degree in the legal field beyond the JD or Bachelors Degree but specialized in Taxation).

He currently teaches or has taught at U. of Md. Burton, I believe, either teaches or has taught at the U Md also.

111 posted on 09/15/2006 10:50:10 AM PDT by pigdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: pigdog
The "Emancipating America from the Income Tax" is the genesis for what is now known as the FairTax and it was done in the mid-'90's using data from that time. If you'd read the entire article you'd notice that the 15% you mention is without the prebate or payroll taxes - both of which are covered in the paper.

Yes, things have changed since the report was written. Republicans in Washington have abandoned the balanced budget and reducing the size of government.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding you - this is what the report says on my computer: Even making the unrealistically adverse assumption that a low-rate NST would have no significant impact on economic growth rates, compliance costs, federal spending on social programs, or federal borrowing costs, a 15 percent national sales tax would provide more than sufficient tax receipts for revenue neutrality while exempting expenditures below the poverty level from tax. The plan should allow for a rebate to all households on their purchases up to the poverty level--thus exempting low-income households from the tax and allowing all taxpayers to purchase the necessities of life tax-free.

The authors of the article are both economists and lawyers with advanced degrees and one, Mastromarco, has an LLM in Taxation as well. This is also mentioned in the lead-in to the article.

This is what is mentioned about the authors just under the title of the article on my computer: David R. Burton (J.D. University of Maryland) is a partner in the Argus Group, a Washington-based law and public policy firm. Dan R. Mastromarco (LL.M. Taxation, Georgetown) is a partner in the Argus Group and an adjunct professor at the University of Maryland, International Management Program.

112 posted on 09/15/2006 11:05:57 AM PDT by lucysmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: lewislynn; pigdog
Looks like the Argus group is part of the Washington Lobbyist clique the FairTaxers wish to reign in.

Argus Group to Lobby Exempt/Non-Exempt Issue: NTA and the United States Tour Operators Association have retained the Argus Group, a Washington, D.C.-area think tank specializing in tax and labor issues, to lobby the U.S. Department of Labor regarding regulations governing exempt and non-exempt employees.

113 posted on 09/15/2006 11:15:56 AM PDT by lucysmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: lucysmom
Please read further in the paper where it shows the revenue neutral rate that includes the payroll taxes and rebate (now called prebate). It's in Table 3 and shows a rate of 21.1% (current for that time in mid 90's). In the bill presently the revenue-neutral rate is now 23%.

The tax rate you quote obviously does not include the items in Table 3 later in the paper but is more like an approximate overview.

My understanding is that Burton got his Econ degree from U. of Chicago prior to any JD. Do you have some reason for the critique of the c.v.'s??? If so, you should take it up with the principals involved, not me, since they are more familiar with their own background that I.

As for them being "lobbyists" they may or may not be but if so, at the very least they are lobbying to remove the income tax. Most of the K-Street crowd make their money by working to change the income tax system to obtain income tax benefits for specific clients that pay them.

Do you somehow find it objectionable that someone in DC is working to eliminate that entire pro income tax lobbying clique???

114 posted on 09/15/2006 11:50:16 AM PDT by pigdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: pigdog
Please read further in the paper where it shows the revenue neutral rate that includes the payroll taxes and rebate (now called prebate). It's in Table 3 and shows a rate of 21.1% (current for that time in mid 90's). In the bill presently the revenue-neutral rate is now 23%.

As I said, the paper was not an analysis of the FairTax.

Putting together the information in Tables 1 and 2, we discover that an NST with no rebate could collect the same amount of revenue ($803 billion) as the current income tax regime with a tax inclusive rate of 11.8 percent, as shown in Table 3. This tax inclusive rate with a rebate to fully protect the poor from the tax (as discussed below) would bring the rate to 14.2 percent. Throughout this study we use a rate of 15 percent, which would offset any losses from tax avoidance beyond the amount that occurs with the current income tax.

My understanding is that Burton got his Econ degree from U. of Chicago prior to any JD. Do you have some reason for the critique of the c.v.'s???

What you wrote earlier was The authors of the article are both economists.

Burton does have a B.A. in economics, does that make both authors economists?

As for them being "lobbyists" they may or may not be...

The Argus Group is a registered lobbyist.

Do you somehow find it objectionable that someone in DC is working to eliminate that entire pro income tax lobbying clique???

I find it odd that the FairTax org makes a big deal about the FairTax bill not being written by politicians while not mentioning that the bill is written by registered lobbyists - you know - the people the bill is supposed to protect us from by limiting their influence on politicians.

Think about it, pigdog - the bill was written by registered lobbyists and is supported by one of the largest special interest groups receiving government welfare at taxpayer expense. This has nothing to do with freedom or returning power to the American people.

115 posted on 09/15/2006 4:10:45 PM PDT by lucysmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: lucysmom
This is actually one of your funnier posts - and that's saying a lot ...

"As I said, the paper was not an analysis of the FairTax."
Since the paper was written before the FairTax was named or put into bill form with that name, that qualifies for a great big DUH!!.

Also since (as I told you earlier) this paper was the genesis of what has become the FairTax and is the same in most particulars, it's reasonable to say that it represents most things having to do with the FairTax (those that have not since changed). Another big DUH!!! You obviously ignored the rest of the paper by choice. Not surprising.

Your claims with respect to this paper have no credence. As I told you previously, if you'd like more information about the backgrounds of the two authors, contact them - not me. I wouldn't pretend to know all about their education and affairs as you seem to.

"The Argus Group is a registered lobbyist."

Really, now - and what do you think that means??? What body or bodies are they registered for and who are their clients? And of these clients, which are currently active and what issues specifically for these clients is the Argus Group registered for? And how many presentations before which bodies has the Argus Group done - and when??? And did it occur to you that many DC organizations register as "lobbyists" to prevent fines and penalties "just in case" since there is a $50,000 fine right off the top if you HAVEN'T registered (and probably even more hiding somewhere in that legislation).

"I find it odd that the FairTax org makes a big deal about the FairTax bill not being written by politicians while not mentioning that the bill is written by registered lobbyists - you know - the people the bill is supposed to protect us from by limiting their influence on politicians."

No doubt you do "find it odd" since all you're attempting to do is to find anything possible (by inference or implication) that you can spin into any sort of derogatory or unethical information about any person or group supporting the FairTax. But sleuthing is not your calling and until you can answer all of the above questions in detail we'll know for sure that your little smear tactic is fruitless. And should you answer all of those questions correctly you can be sure there are more that will be forthcoming.

It perhaps has not occurred to you also that this particular "lobbyist" group represents AFFT and the main thrust of both the group and the organization is the issue of removing the present income tax system completely and replacing it with a demonstrably superior tax mechanism that will benefit most taxpayers and the country's economy as a whole. Pretending (as you do) that there is some sort of nefarious mischief here is truly childish - as well as complete nonsense.

In addition, you are apparently so shortsighted as to not be able to see that under the FairTax the influence of the lobbyists on the income tax laws of this country (which is where many if not most practice their craft) will decline to roughly zero since there will be no more income tax to fiddle with and hide things in. Will all lobbyists go away?? Of course not, since even clients such as the American Quarter Horse Association has a lobbyist and will no doubt continue to do so. But the lobbyists' influence in our lives WRT the income tax and environs certainly does go away. You, of course, don't wish to see that happen (for whatever reason).

"Think about it, pigdog - the bill was written by registered lobbyists and is supported by one of the largest special interest groups receiving government welfare at taxpayer expense. This has nothing to do with freedom or returning power to the American people. "

NO - YOU think about it. The drafters of HR25 do not represent "the largest special interest group" as you're attempting to imply, they represent the AFFT which is the group behind the FairTax legislation. You attempt at "smear by innuendo" is a shoddy example of misinformation and half-tuth. And your last sentence in the above quote is exactly, 100% incorrect - it has everything to do with accomplishing that very thing. And despite your collective tactics, we will do that TYVM.

116 posted on 09/15/2006 7:18:25 PM PDT by pigdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: pigdog
Since the paper was written before the FairTax was named or put into bill form with that name, that qualifies for a great big DUH!!

Your claim is that the FairTax has been studied by economists, I'm asking for a link to an economist's study of the FairTax.

Your stock answers to published criticism of the FairTax is, the bill itself was not examined, the author was not an economist or an economist of sufficient stature, or that the author or organization has a particular bias. I expect you to apply the same standards to your sources.

The drafters of HR25 do not represent "the largest special interest group"...

Good grief man! You cut and paste my very words and then misquote me. This is what I wrote, supported by one of the largest special interest groups receiving government welfare at taxpayer expense. "Represent the largest special interest group" has a very different meaning than "supported by one of the largest special interest groups".

The drafters of HR25 do not represent "the largest special interest group" as you're attempting to imply, they represent the AFFT which is the group behind the FairTax legislation.

Didn't say or imply that. Yet, they are doing exactly what you say lobbyists do, influencing tax laws, in fact, they want to write tax law.

117 posted on 09/15/2006 8:07:44 PM PDT by lucysmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: pigdog

Mine would go up, but only slightly. Mainly due to the fact that I have about 11,000 in deductions annually for nonreimbursed employee business expenses such as mileage, supplies, etc.


118 posted on 09/16/2006 8:43:07 AM PDT by RockinRight (She rocks my world, and I rock her world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: lucysmom
"Your claim is that the FairTax has been studied by economists, I'm asking for a link to an economist's study of the FairTax.

Your stock answers to published criticism of the FairTax is, the bill itself was not examined, the author was not an economist or an economist of sufficient stature, or that the author or organization has a particular bias. I expect you to apply the same standards to your sources. "

I've told you more than once that the paper you cite was the original economic study that became the FairTax. Its it your position, somehow, that the authors of the paper didn't know the content of what they were writing/publishing or had not reviewed it?? The paper is certainly a review (and the earliest one since it is the progenitor) or the FairTax. That it was not named "FairTax" at that point does not alter that at all. Your claim to the contrary is shallow foolishness and especially so since you're never read the bill yourself.

Those aren't "stock criticism" but absolutely truthful observations. If you can show us, for example, how the President's Tax Panel Report matches up with the FairTax as written I'd be glad to hear about it. For example, why remove government output from the tax base as they did??? If you can't see that Bill Gale from Brookings Institute has a bias against the FairTax then you;re not too perceptive as he routinely tries the same stunt as tried by the Tax Panel (and probably helped influence their report for that matter). Show us why Gale routinely reduces the tax base rather than reviewing it as defined by the FairTax.

And I DO apply the same standards to the "authors" you come up with - and they invariably come up short; usually in several ways.

Pardon me if I misunderstood what you claimed. Perhaps you should have named the evil "largest special interest groups" you intended rather that leave us all guessing.

It is the stated purpose of lobbyists to influence laws - that's how they make their living. My concern is not with lobbyists in general but with our income tax system which makes it so lucrative (and attractive both financially and professionally) to tweak the income tax code for the benefit of the certain parties they represent. With the FairTax that sort of representation will go away almost completely since there is nothing to "tweak"; no special exemptions or exceptions. No shading of depreciation rules to benefit certain industries, no special portions of the tax code to allow off-shore mixing of taxable money --- and so on endlessly. It is the combination of the income tax laws and the lobbyist structure that makes the combination so deadly.

Your attempt somehow to equate those behind the FairTax with the lobbyists that today manipulate the income tax for special clients and special situations fails completely since the FairTax treats all taxpayers equally and businesses are completely untaxed so there are few tempting lobbying targets as any change in the FairTax will affect ALL taxpayers and be highly visible.

119 posted on 09/16/2006 3:34:42 PM PDT by pigdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: pigdog
I've told you more than once that the paper you cite was the original economic study that became the FairTax. Its it your position, somehow, that the authors of the paper didn't know the content of what they were writing/publishing or had not reviewed it?? The paper is certainly a review (and the earliest one since it is the progenitor) or the FairTax. That it was not named "FairTax" at that point does not alter that at all. Your claim to the contrary is shallow foolishness and especially so since you're never read the bill yourself.

The paper assumes that payroll taxes will remain in place and also assumes a 15% tax rate throughout the paper. There is one brief mention of what the rate would be with the elimination of payroll taxes.

Why is that significant? It doubles the tax rate and multiplies the probably of evasion. When evasion increases, tax collections are decreased and compliance costs go up.

Those aren't "stock criticism" but absolutely truthful observations. If you can show us, for example, how the President's Tax Panel Report matches up with the FairTax as written I'd be glad to hear about it.

The president's tax panel has not changed the bill, but does not agree with the FairTaxers conclusions. For instance, the FairTax bill ignores the effects of evasion, an unreasonable assumption. The tax panel assumes a 15-30% evasion rate and substantiates its position.

For example, why remove government output from the tax base as they did???

They did a good job of explaining their reasoning. You would know that if you read their report.

Show us why Gale routinely reduces the tax base rather than reviewing it as defined by the FairTax.

I hate to sound like a broken record, but dude, the FairTax bill wrongly defines the base and ignores evasion>

Pardon me if I misunderstood what you claimed. Perhaps you should have named the evil "largest special interest groups" you intended rather that leave us all guessing.

I have named it before, the American Farm Bureau. I hate repeating myself.

It is the stated purpose of lobbyists to influence laws - that's how they make their living. My concern is not with lobbyists in general but with our income tax system which makes it so lucrative (and attractive both financially and professionally) to tweak the income tax code for the benefit of the certain parties they represent. With the FairTax that sort of representation will go away almost completely since there is nothing to "tweak"; no special exemptions or exceptions. No shading of depreciation rules to benefit certain industries, no special portions of the tax code to allow off-shore mixing of taxable money --- and so on endlessly. It is the combination of the income tax laws and the lobbyist structure that makes the combination so deadly.

You are either being disingenuous or naive.

Your attempt somehow to equate those behind the FairTax with the lobbyists that today manipulate the income tax for special clients and special situations fails completely since the FairTax treats all taxpayers equally...

It may treat all taxpayers equally, but it does not treat all money equally. Some of those papers the FairTax site links to acknowledges that older taxpayers with retirement savings are penalized significantly. Recommendations to mitagate the loss is simply ignored in the FairTax bill and by FairTax advocates.

...and businesses are completely untaxed so there are few tempting lobbying targets as any change in the FairTax will affect ALL taxpayers and be highly visible.

Hide and watch.

120 posted on 09/16/2006 7:15:20 PM PDT by lucysmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-125 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson